United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Deshon Andrews, Sherburne County Jail, Elk River, MN 55330,
L. Gerdts, MN, standby counsel for Defendant
Jeffrey Paulsen and Samantha Bates, United States
Attorney's Office, MN 55415, for the Government
RICHARD NELSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is the Motion to Suppress/Exclude Evidence Due to
Late and Untimely Disclosure/Violation of Rule 16 [Doc. No.
184] filed by Defendant Norris Deshon Andrews. In the July
24, 2019 Order [Doc. No. 245], the Court deferred ruling on
the motion at that time, noting that the magistrate judge
would entertain supplemental briefing following the July 18,
2019 reopened suppression hearing and the Court would rule on
the motion closer to trial.
offered at the reopened suppression hearing was limited to
newly disclosed evidence on limited topics. Following the
reopened suppression hearing, Magistrate Judge Schultz issued
an Order and Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 261] denying
Defendant's motions, which the Court has since affirmed
and adopted [Doc. No. 270]. Because the instant motion
pertains to newly disclosed evidence, the Court finds it
appropriate to rule on it at this time.
asserts that the Government failed to timely disclose
particular evidence- certain Minneapolis Police Department
reports, vehicle impound reports, bodycam videos, and audio
recordings- in violation of its discovery obligations.
(Def.'s Mot. at 1; id., Attach. 1 [Doc. No. 185]
at 1-3.) The Government disclosed the evidence on April 12
and 16. (See Def.'s Mot., Attach. 1 at 1-3.) Andrews
contends that the Government attempted to
“suppress” this evidence “in a[n] effort to
hide the officers['] of the Minneapolis Police Department
misconduct/framing of the defendant by conducting illegal
searches, planting evidence and breaking into a SUV.”
(Def.'s Mot. at 1.) He asserts that by failing
to disclose this evidence on a timely basis, the Government
has violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
(Id.) In particular, Andrews contends that the
evidence would have been useful for several reasons: to
impeach Government witnesses, provide alibi evidence, and
exonerate him. (Id. at 2.) Andrews requests that the
evidence in question be suppressed and the motions hearing be
reopened to enter the newly discovered evidence into the
record and permit him to examine witnesses on this evidence.
(Id. at 1-2.)
his request to reopen the suppression hearing, the hearing
was, in fact, reopened on July 18, 2019, and Andrews had the
opportunity to offer newly disclosed discovery in evidence
and examine witnesses. His request for relief on this basis
is therefore denied as moot.
Court notes that Defendant's request to suppress or
exclude the evidence, however, runs counter to his actions in
moving for the production of the discovery and admission of
the evidence. In any event, there is no basis for suppressing
this evidence due to late or untimely disclosure. The
Government notes that subject to certain exceptions, Rule
16(a)(2) generally exempts the disclosure of reports and
internal government documents “made by [a] . . .
government agent in connection with investigating or
prosecuting the case.” (See Gov't's
Resp. [Doc. No. 200] at 6); Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(2). The
Government's actions in initially not disclosing the
evidence on this basis were not improper.
extent that the evidence contains officers' statements or
witness statements, they could be discoverable as
Jencks material, if the officer or witness were to
testify at trial. The Government agreed to provide
Jencks material not later than three business days
prior to trial. (Gov't's Resp. to Pretrial Mots.
[Doc. No. 34] at 1; Sept. 10, 2018 Hr'g Tr. [Doc. No. 51]
at 7.) To the extent that this evidence contains
Jencks material, Defendant will have had it over
five months before trial.
the Government violated its obligations under Brady
and Giglio. Setting aside whether the evidence could
even be considered materially favorable to Andrews, the
Government agreed to disclose any such evidence as it came to
light. (Gov't's Resp. to Pretrial Mots. [Doc. No. 34]
at 1.) As noted, the Government disclosed the evidence on
April 12 and 16. (See Def.'s Mot., Attach. 1.) Trial is
scheduled to begin on September 23, 2019. Defendant has had
ample time to review this evidence in preparation for trial,
his defense has not been prejudiced, and the Government has
not violated its discovery obligations. Accordingly,
Defendant's motion to suppress is denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Defendant's Motion [Doc. No. 184] to Suppress/Exclude
Evidence Due to Late and Untimely Disclosure is
DENIED as to the suppression of the evidence
and DENIED AS MOOT ...